AA is Completely Broken at its Core

If AA isn't fun for you STOP DOING IT or we could just get the DEV's to create a nice 12$ rocket launcher for you that shoots heat seeking clown faces at all air vehicles. But REMEMBER


THEY WILL ONLY DO IT IF YOU MAKE MORE THREADS! WE NEED MOAR THREADS!!!

Air is inherently broken if we keep the same aircraft and the answer has always been simple: add more aircraft types.

ESFs have the make and mechanics of a Scout; not an aircraft that is supposed to have the capability to engage any target with reasonable parity. It is vulnerable to small-arms fire for god's sake.

The attempted compromise between giving it and taking away from its capability just produced a mess that, as the OP mentioned, leaves an altogether broken system. Fact is that new players are willing to try out advanced infantry combat, to participate in tank columns and so on, but hardly any go ahead and venture seriously into Air combat except a select few: mostly because of the unlock barrier since the fact is you are useless without rocket pods, upgraded chassis, flares, etc.

Seasoned veterans are finding it tricky to be effective as an ESF. So one has to think then how will newbies or even casuals are? Thus why is there a surprise that ESF use for non-dedicated pilots is not a prospect to consider?

Instead more aircraft should be added to the game.

A dedicated fighter that would be especially designed to deal with aircraft from the get go.

A dedicated ground attack aircraft that is designed to take out specific ground targets - either by payload or by direct fire.

Such aircraft should have capability for multiple crewmen - maybe a crew of two - that would further enhance its capability, either in terms of offensive power or survivability.

Thus there would be no fear of giving the Liberator - a high altitude Bomber - the capability it deserves. It can thus be a menace to be considered, mostly since then it will be prey to aircraft that can do a really good job of killing it.

And furthermore ESFs will fulfill their role as the Lightnings of the air - an aircraft capable of multirole but incapable of excelling in any specific role. A jack of all trades but a master of none. Those who can utilise its flexibility should be duly rewarded, but henceforth there is no need to give it more capability than it deserves for the sake of those not interested in its flexibility.

Then the discussion of balance between aircraft and even balance between ground and air can be done from enough depth that makes a difference. If the problem is ground AA, by balancing you don't have to punish those that don't even attack the ground. If the problem is fighter capability against bombers, you don't have to punish ground assets.

Add depth to a sphere of the battlefield in PS2 that doesn't have that much at all. Make it possible to allow new players to, from the get go and in conjunction with teammates, have to capability to make a difference from the air without having to cert into one piece of equipment. The game should reward smart play and teamwork, not merely the most certed machine.

I actually have lots of fun with my Burster MAX because I can farm all the terrible pilots.

I'm confused, what's this guy complaining about?

Not being able to deal with all threats at all times with one weapon or something?

Dude, it's a combined arms game, you're not supposed to be able to rambo everything all you want all the time and never have to worry about something. Currently, Armor has to deal with so much crap that ESF's never have to deal with and HA's basically can be awesome at killing tanks AND infantry... at least with ESF you have to focus on weapons SPECIFCIALLY for them aka AA MAX"s and crap.

They should force the same on armor, not reduce specialization.

Problem with this is that the game only has 1000 meters of verticality. So even on areas of the map where the ground is at 500 meters (such as Indar South West) aircraft can only go so high, in this case you're only 400sih meters over the ground and that's the ceiling. The Devs would have to add an additional 1000 meters to even accommodate this, or rework how the flight ceiling works entirely

There are a couple of big problems.

The first, at the risk of starting a poopstorm, is lock-ons. They are simply much more effective than other options. Skyguards are the best G2A choice, but they are underutilized because lock-ons are cheaper and easier, and a Heavy Assault can still use their LMG for AI, and there is no cost. Twelve skyguards would devastate enemy air, but is massively overkill because any air force you'll encounter could just as easily be dispatched by twelve heavies. Just looking at the risk/reward, it's better to take the cheap no-penalty option. Skyguards are awesome, but require a substantial cert investment (similar to aircraft) and resource cost. Playing cat-and-mouse with skyguards is also very fun in a way that lock-ons don't match. It's a game, it should be fun for everyone.

The second, much bigger problem is horrible base design. Bases were thoughtlessly designed so that attackers almost always have the high ground, and are so open that vehicles are always free to fire inside. This has been a glaring issue for over a year and the fact that it remains unfixed is appalling. The new Amerish bases look like they might be an improvement, though. Map design is also a problem, and bases like Abandoned NS offices simply should not exist. Mao to Hvar has this great open field that should be great for vehicle combat, and should require real combined arms play. Instead we have a horrible footzerg stalemate at Abandoned NS where the point and spawn room are in a ditch and easily shelled and is as frustrating to attack as it is to defend. You have two great walled bases that should have awesome fights between them, but instead we're forced to cram platoons in a tiny area that adds nothing to gameplay. There are things like this all over the gameworld that ruin combined arms combat.

The third is the idea that you should kill vehicles with AV. Even AV vehicles get as many or more kill assists as kills. Vehicles, like infantry, are often killed by multiple sources, and with all the chaos of the game, a single stray bullet or rocket can steal your kill. Despite that, vehicle KA's give a lot of exp, much more than an infantry kill in many cases.

The fourth is that vehicles require no specialization to use. The frankly moronic idea that everyone can pull everything all the time was foolish. It makes vehicles more like powerups, and punishes people who want to be dedicated vehicle users. The fact that a tank with 70k certs and hundreds of hours of time invested has to be balanced because every BR1 can pull a tank is absurd. It's annoying for people who want to learn to use vehicles well because of strong counters--I have about 75% of my lifetime certs in my mossie, but it takes a day or two to earn the certs for

The fifth is that scaling combined with lack of vehicle goals forces vehicles to avoid big fights. Tank zergs steamroll smaller forces, but tank v tank results in stalemates or both sides losing most armor. Aircraft are extremely powerful in 1-12 fights, but are largely excluded from big ones. We need generators that control objectives that can only be destroyed by vehicles. We need resource nodes and bonus-giving things that vehicles can destroy by bypassing the lattice and going behind enemy lines. Infantry are all that matter in base fights because only they capture points.

Tl;dr PS2 is a combined arms game designed for infantry-only play in the way bases and objectives work, making vehicles' only worthwhile role for team contributors as slayers of infantry and sunderers. Fighting each other is fun, but Pyrrhic, as destroying enemy vehicles puts them out of commission for awhile, and your "prize" is having more vulnerable infantry (which are less fun to fight).

I've pulled my mossie to help my platoon only to buzz around going "where is the enemy air?" too many times. Then I just take potshots at infantry with my rotary until I get destroyed or really bored and go back to running around as an engineer where I'm really contributing. Flying is way more fun, but the striation these days with strong G2A is too high. Low level pilots get eliminated easily by G2A, which means thoseof us who are more medium tier find ourselves with few targets, and usually get destroyed by the aces. That's not fun. Going into a fight against ground or air knowing your chance of success is low in either case sucks. Even more experienced pilots who win a lot of A2A encounters have quit. The fun parts of flying are always interrupted by ground, and there are so few dedicated pilots working to replace them. Learning to fly back in March was tough, but these days I can't even imagine trying to learn to fly.p

Edit:
Since I'm seeing SPM coming up in other replies, most pilots (including Daddy) have higher SPM in vehicles other their ESF's. The idea that they are the highest SPM option for aces is largely a myth.

That's what I'm suggesting, yes.

Okay, just being clear. I think it would be fantastic if they could increase the flight ceiling and add a cloud layer (dog fights through visibility reducing clouds? Hell yeah) but I highly doubt it will happen.

Ironic. I consider ESF's to be the PS2 masters of being "able to do anything at once".

That would be awesome! Would give radar and stealth abilities a whole new meaning too! Possibly also thermal imaging. (Actually, night-time above the cloud layer might make nightvision more viable.)

Can you imagine running a Galaxy stealth drop, sticking to the cloud layer, using the map to navigate, and hoping not to run into any high altitude patrols? Good fun.

Pretty much. Especially since the 1st issue is very much a product of SOE trying to fix A2G combat. So we must be wary that the problems with the game today are the product of previously thought solutions for pretty much the same problem.

But, as I detailed in my previous post, and especially in conjunction with your 4th point, I can't think of a combat ecosystem (or "combined arms" environment, if you will) that will not be without a broken relation between ground and air unless more aircraft types are added to specialise the role of each. Because if you are specialising in an ESF, what are you specialising in exactly? For the most part, capability against everything - air targets, vehicles if mounting rocket pods and infantry. It is consequently not a surprise, and mechanically even a necessity, that such an aircraft has vulnerability from all possible targets. If something has a much wider capability than it has vulnerability, then it starts becoming a problem. Hence why in most games "Rock-Paper-Scissors" mechanics work; although I hope this game aspires for more complex ideas than that.

Otherwise, very good points. It is such an issue with the game that there are countless points to bring up, each vital to the discussion and each pointing to the same conclusion: the changes that need to be made would make the game unrecognisable from the current state, which in a way saddens me since I don't think anyone here is convinced that the devs will make the needed time and effort to fix a product that is already making them money. But we can only banter and hope.

The thing is hunting air in the air is actually a lot harder than on the ground since you are now playing in the pilots comfort zone. When I'm in an ESF the majority of the times I die is to an enemy master pilot. Furthermore if the best way to counter pilots is to be one then why **** yourself and play anything else. Sure bases "need" to be captured but there's usually someone else willing to "take one for the team." It's not fun knowing that you could perform more effectively by playing a different class or vehicle. Also learning to fly is not a small bother it is a rather large bother, since most of the experienced pilots will suggest practicing for 100+ hours in VR before even going out and doing something actually fun, like playing the game.

Being shot with bullets isn't fun either. Lockons aren't the most thrilling forms of combat, but getting the kill is just as satisfying.

I dont see whats wrong. AA works fine, it keeps air outside that zone. Isnt that the whole point of the term Anti Air? I also have a lot of fun flying ESFs. The problem you seem to be describing is the presence of AA everywhere (which i find untrue) and then you say AA is too weak because it makes you vulnerable. Well yes, you sacrifice an ability for another one. What is the alternative? An all purpose weapon? Doesnt the basilisk fill that role?

If you are having trouble killing ESFs then pull a skyguard. If you get hit by flak in an ESF change location. Not all locations have AA
You cant simply afterburn in a 90 player battle expecting not to get shot.


tl;dr (ignore strange rambling and read this)
I disagree that flak isnt effective. If you want to kill ESFs pull a skyguard. If you want to deter air, use any form of AA. Both forms are effective in getting rid of air in the zone

I disagree that it is unfun for ESF pilots. Flak isnt present in all bases

Im confused by what you are trying to get at with saying pulling AA makes you vulnerable to other things. Isn't that the whole point of a combined arms game? To not have a jack of all trades?

I agree we need a pre nerfed Harasser with wings...

No doubt in my mind, I die most to bridges. Actually, any dangerous flying stunt that you'd be an idiot to try when you don't have to. Sometimes I don't even make it to the combat zone. I see one of those covered bridges on my way, and I think to myself "Well, can't hurt to try!".

Once I overtook a Harrasser driving across the bridges from Scarred Mesa to Regent Rock. I was in a Reaver. Priceless. Usually I just explode.

Mate, time after time, I talked on this subject. Many people did the same. The general consensus was that, AA was not rewarding, and a waste of time in general. So they added some damage XP bonuses. Still not enough in my opinion.

I agree with the OP. The problem I have is that you do have the ability to pull an AA Max or Skyguard but it's really a deterrent and more than likely that pilot will just come back shortly after unless you have someone dedicated to being bored and sitting there camping and waiting for that ESF.

Air should be much faster as the OP stated, but I don't agree with them not being able to hover. Hovering does make them fun, but the speed in which you can go from hovering to full forward thrust is too fast. The ESF should be more like a F35, where it has much less maneuverability when it is hovering and would take much longer to convert from downward thrust to forward. Vehicles should be pretty powerful, as their real life counterparts, which is what most people relate them to. The problem comes from the ability of everyone being able to pull them at will. The vehicle timers and resource costs are just stupid, not to mention they are way too easy to use.

I think if SOE simply added a bit of realism then all would be fine. You can only get 100% output from your vehicle's engine, so if you use 60% to hover then only 40% would be left to maneuver or for forward thrust, not the full 100% as it currently is. Also if air was made faster than they currently are then you would have more dynamic air battles due to how some pilots would do strafing runs at max speed which should out run or severely dampen the effects of lock ons, while others would in theory slow down a tad bit in order to gain more maneuverability like how ESFs currently perform to kill land vehicles and infantry. SO, the faster you fly the less maneuverable (slightly), the more you hover the less maneuverable, but you can always fly in that sweet spot which would be how ESF's currently perform when flying near their current top speed.

This is based on the idea that ESFs use thrusters to maneuver, which I am pretty positive they do, but not completely sure.

ESF's have had every weapon system they have nerf'ed to help infantry and armor.

Flack has been buffed and now rewards users for damage done.

Its been stated many times by the dev's from the very start that AA is not the hard counter to Air. The hard counter to air is other esf's.

I think the balance is perfect.

I vote no change.

Well I did offer other options, I was just saying learning to fly is well worth it. There are plenty of pilots way better than me, the thing is 90% I can catch off guard or outfly and get some vengance. The 10% of awesome 100% pilots are usually better just to grab a friend or 2 pull a couple of Dual Bursters and then hide and bait the pilot in. Then when he gets close you both Pop out and ruin his day. Sure they will usually be back right away in another ESF, but you did shut them down for a few minutes effectively (and if they are really pro they usually learn from their mistakes and go elsewhere)

Hence the reason its a combined arms game, Air counters Air, Ground counters Ground. Remember for the 1st 6 months where you could cap points in vehicles? It was a lot like battlefeild then, vehicles could actually contribute to a capture. Now infantry actually serve a purpose other than free certs/arming generators or capping biolabs.

I know, All I see is 90% of the players using Maxes and Heavies every time I log in. I rarely use either, yet when I do I understand why they do it religiously. A giant Robot of death and a dude with 200 rounds and an extra shield, talk about balanced.

I don't know about that? I learned to fly just after launch, so AA was a lot weaker and players where not as good as they are now. Not to mention there was no VR, so it was all about trial and error. Only took about a month to get the hang of it and be semi decent. Remapping the keys to something you find comfortable is most of the challenge.

Practicing in VR is boring. Not to mention its still bugged so when you crash in VR it still counts as a death on your stats. I would advise learning where there is a risk vs. reward. I found it a lot easier to see what other pilots do by watching and sending people who kill you /tells is a great way to learn how they do what they do.